Clark v Halmar Equities, Inc.
2011 NY Slip Op 07599 [88 AD3d 940]
October 25, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, December 7, 2011


Charles Clark et al., Respondents,
v
Halmar Equities, Inc., et al., Appellants.

—[*1] Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey C. Crawford and Sara F. Lieberman of counsel), for appellant Halmar Equities, Inc.

Morenus, Conway, Goren & Brandman, Melville, N.Y. (Thomas B. Goren of counsel), for appellant Industrial Time & Systems, Inc.

Baker Greenspan & Bernstein, Bellmore, N.Y. (Robin R. Halstrom of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated June 15, 2010, which granted the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendants' compliance with their discovery demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The trial court is vested with broad discretion over the supervision of discovery, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Congel v Malfitano, 84 AD3d 1145 [2011]; Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802 [2010]; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694 [2009]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendants' compliance with their discovery demands. Mastro, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.